Objektivna odgovornost medicinskih poslenika za štetu od opasnih medicinskih sredstava - argumenti pro et contra

Abstract

U radu se analizira mogućnost zasnivanja objektivne odgovornosti medicinskih poslenika za štetu prouzrokovanu pacijentima primenom opasnih medicinskih sredstava. Analiza bivšeg jugoslovenskog prava pokazuje da, i pored usvojenog otvorenog sistema objektivne odgovornosti, Savezni sud SFRJ nije prihvatio takvu odgovornost. Posebno je opisano stanje u aktuelnoj hrvatskoj i srpskoj pravnoj teoriji i sudskoj praksi koje pokazuje da se objektivna odgovornost medicinskih poslenika za štetu od opasnih medicinskih sredstava načelno ne isključuje. Posle razmatranja argumenata pro et contra, autor zaključuje da veći broj argumenata opravdava mogućnost zasnivanja takve odgovornosti medicinskih poslenika.

The former Yugoslav law, as well as the law in all former Yugoslav republics, adopts the so-called open system of strict liability, so if the patient suffers damage due to dangerous medical device usage, medical workers, in general, may be held liable under the rules on liability for dangerous objects and dangerous activities. However, strict liability of medical workers was not affirmed in the Yugoslav law, because court practice that headed in that direction was stopped by a decision of the Federal Court of Yugoslavia. Current Croatian legal theory accepts the strict liability of medical workers, whilst the court practice is divided. Serbian legal theory is also divided, but a recent court decision granting the strict liability of the medical workers may be the jurisprudence U-turn. This paper analyses all arguments pro et contra regarding strict liability of medical workers and concludes that nearly all arguments are in favor of such liability.